The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

There's a price to be paid to get science published these days.
I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published
Charles Rotter
To put it another way, I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and…

 

Just finished this article about an hour ago. what a sad comment on the state of science vs politics.

 

This is the sort of thing I have noted with disgust in many climate-related papers whose actual contents either do not support or even outright contradict the CO2-controls-surface-temperature dogma. I call it, "genuflecting to the CO2 narrative."

Sad days for science....

 

Apparently they believe that better propaganda > better science.
More Rending of Garments from “Academia” or Why…Why Won’t those Troglodytes Trust Us?
Charles Rotter
In the long tradition of Lewandowsky (who warrants an entire category listing on this site), Cook, Oreskes, and more, we have a new entry into the well-worn genre of trying…

 

Liars gonna lie.
Did the BBC’s Specialist Disinformation Reporter Lie on her CV?
Eric Worrall
BBC Disinformation head Marianna Spring is a fierce defender of the BBC’s institutional climate bias, and a critic of anti-Covid lockdown conspiracy theorists. . . .

 

More fraudulent tub-thumping.
“Mind-blowing” Claims of Record Low Antarctica Sea Ice on BBC Contradicted by Statements Made Seven Years Ago
Guest Blogger

Antarctica sea ice is at a “mind-blowing” record low winter area of 17 million square kilometres, reports a three-person BBC “News Climate & Science and Data Journalism Team”, as lower levels than those recorded in the recent past provide the cue for yet more media climate hysteria. Of course, the BBC headline is clickbait nonsense, not least because it has been generally known in scientific circles that early NASA Nimbus satellites showed even lower winter levels around 15 million sq. kms in 1966. But the BBC story does provide an excellent example of how science is twisted to fit the political narrative supporting the collectivist Net Zero agenda. Any unusual variation in weather and natural events is treated as evidence of a climate collapse requiring urgent human intervention. . . . .

 

The media rarely let facts get in the way of hysteria.

 

"If it bleeds, it leads."

 

Indoctrination marches on.
Mandatory Indoctrination: UC San Diego’s Climate Change Education Requirement
Charles Rotter
This requirement, approved by the Academic Senate, is a clear example of the university’s shift from fostering critical thinking to promoting a singular ideological agenda. . . .

 

The end result on WHY America is sliding behind many nations on technology developments and application.

 

In what technology are you suggesting America is failing?

 

At the center of the Resistance:
Thanks, and the Future for WUWT
Anthony Watts
I want to thank everyone for their participation and the commentary at WUWT this past year, for without you, this would just be a distant and unknown corner of the…


". . . . We’ve accomplished a lot this year. We’ve added unique and relevant AI generated but user-directed images as a feature for our head-post illustrations, which gives WUWT a special ability to illustrate and poke fun at some of the issues and people we cover. We’ve added other new features such as the Failed Climate Prediction Timeline. We’ve had contests for essays on climate change. We’ve added new graphics to the sidebar to illustrate the state of temperature for the U.S. and the world you won’t see elsewhere. We have recently updated the Everything Climate reference website to be part of WUWT – it was originally a separate URL but we had troubles keeping it managed and working properly due to internal WordPress issues. We’ve added a page showing that severe weather is not in fact getting worse despite what the media tells you. We are fighting back against the belief that climate related doom is just around the corner… with facts, and we will continue to do so.

We passed the 500 million views mark this year – no other climate related website can claim this. Many have not stood the test of time, disappeared, or have become inactive. We are still here. Many of our hostile screeching detractors at these websites have disappeared as well.

THANKS

I also wish to sincerely thank those of you that have contributed funds to WUWT in sums both big and small. I thank those of you known and unknown, who have kept us afloat. Despite the fevered fantasies of our detractors, we’ve yet to get a single penny from “big oil.” Hell, we can’t even run Google Adwords anymore to generate some compensation as we have been banned because we publish things that are counter to the alarmist climate narrative and Google decided to listen to angry fools, instead of realists. Yet we persist, despite the efforts to starve and silence us with search engine and social media suppression.

I’d like to thank our detractors as well, it is because of your inane pigheadedness and resistance to logic and facts that we have the inspiration to move forward. Even many of our fake commenters are worthy of a thank you, except of course, “Griff,” who chickened out when we went to a registration requirement to comment. What I’ve learned is that most of our detractors are simply cowards. . . "

 

That's a clear statement of opinion of the majority of scientists dedicated to investigation of climate.

Plus, it shows whether you personally are open to discussion.

 

I knew who Griff who was a certifiable whack job with no identifiable understanding of what science research is about he had stupidly insulted a Polar Bear researcher assuming she was just a common armchair person when she was actually a scientist with a PHD in Zoology and 30+ years of research in the arctic region the fool never apologized for the ugly smears he posted.

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Oh, the epic fail that was!

 

It works in China.... All must "believe" in the righteousness of the state.....

 

Ironic you'd mention "open to discussion" when you very rarely are, yourself.

 

I choose to present the expert opinion of the world of related sciences.

I can't really trade off against that. I have no standing with the world of climate experts.

 

It would be pretty dang stupid for higher education to ignore the world of science on a topic of this breadth and impact in decision making today - throughout the world.

It would be like refusing the teaching of evolution, since there are those who have strong creationist beliefs.

It would be like refusing to teach OB/GYNs about abortion methods and risks, even though it is well known that there are women whose LIVES depend on the availability of an abortion.

Have you thought about what it means when some anti-climate change individual doesn't actually understand the science of climate change, yet tries to make arguments to support their position??

Besides, it is more like China to REFUSE to teach difficult subjects, try to block the internet, etc. America is supposed to be supportive of full and open education.

Have you thought about what America stands for??

 

Blind obedience is what they want; they'll welcome you aboard.

 

The blind are those who refuse to learn what experts from the world over are pointing out.

Making argument without knowing what the experts are saying is ignorance.

Of course, one can try to make an argument that there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists working in all the various fields of climatology. Then, it might be justifiable to ignore them, depending on evidence found to that effect.

 

. Conspiracy is not among scientists, it's among the people that hire and pay them.
I never make an argument without knowing what the experts are says - I just listen to both sides first. I never assume a "PhD" after a person's name conveys omnipotence. Particularly, when others with PhDs after their names are saying "wait, just a minute".

 

What's the "other side" that is more credible than the world full of climatologists of various specialties?

I don't believe you can listen to one PhD on this. And, I do believe it is important for differences to be worked out by mutual review of dissenters and the main stream of science.

That is, posting a PhD isn't good enough. You can always find a PhD who will say something contrarian. We had PhDs promoting the safety of smoking, the "cure all" capacity of vitamin C, etc.

The process then has to consider getting a serious response or dialog. And, you know I don't mean a journal review of a paper, as such review is usually by one person reviewing methodology, etc. - not deciding if the paper upsets mainstream science.

 

The same thing - large numbers of equally qualified climatologists.

I don't. And, as I said above I don't believe having a "PhD" after your name endows one with infallibility. I also understand that politics has muscled in on the field and pay well for findings that support their particular viewpoint.

Good analogy - apply it to climatology.

I listen to several PhD's both "deniers" and "warmists". But I also apply my own education in statistics, probably and randomness. I also read a variety of books on the topics. And particularly listen to contrarian PhDs that find their papers rejected be cause they question the "party line". REAL science journals would publish BOTH theses. They don't.

 

The climatologists go for consensus enforcement, not dialogue. Research that calls into question the Climate Emergency narrative is apparently too dangerous for discussion.
Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again
Kip Hansen
One would think that the public relations fiasco that stuck climate science (and sullied the reputation of science in general) as a result of ClimateGate back in 2009 would restrain climate scientists from attempting to suppress published peer-reviewed studies that they “don’t like” or the conclusions of which are “not helpful” to their climate crisis advocacy positions.

But, it appears that Michael Mann and his cronies are at it again forcing the retraction of a paper published last January (2022), in the European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP), a peer-reviewed academic journal (one of the 2,900 journals published through Springer Nature). That paper is titled, “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” by Gianluca Alimonti, Luigi Mariani, Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci. [hereafter, Alimonti (2022)]. . . . .

The inestimable Roger Pielke Jr. covers the ongoing story on his substack piece: “Think of the Implications of Publishing — A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate science” first published on Jul 17, 2023. Do read Pielke’s piece for his insight into all the gory details. . . .

5. Here I quote Roger Pielke Jr. from his substack (here):

“To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.” . . . .